Too many people think these are funds to just run the universities. By and large, what is being withheld are funds for research.
Federally-funded academic science often looks like:
1. The university + government fund/run a project
2. Project creates new knowledge (cool!)
3. The government gets a pretty awesome license to use that knowledge
4. The government more often than not gives that knowledge away (or offers great accessible licensing), so that
5. Private industry can adapt, apply and commercialize the knowledge, driving new GDP growth and opportunities for improving life, etc.
Withholding these funds ends the research projects, because Universities are not startup incubators. So the research stops, and one of the highest returning pipelines of new GDP growth for the US dries up—unless today, the professors and universities kiss the president's ring and promise to wipe out 50-100 years of human rights improvements.
It's that last step - 5 - which I think is a missing piece of the discussion. A lot of private company pharma and medical research is often doing the 'last mile' work that started in university research programs. Stuff that looks promising is picked up and commercialized, but there's usually significant work the research people have done before big commercial players take it to market. They're not doing all their research from scratch - they're taking the best bits funded by our government research programs and bringing them to market. Cutting university research will damage the private sector pretty quickly.
It even goes beyond the concrete research that eventually gets commercialized. One pharma startup I am familiar with has much of its research-related leadership and board staffed with very successful current or former academic researchers who used to run their own labs or even departments. We cannot shift skill acquisition like that over night to private industry.
On #3 "government gets a pretty awesome license" seems disingenuous. From what I've witnessed some specific agencies get to use that license in a rather limited way. It's often not broadly available to the public and commercial rights tend to be reserved to the University. Is that actually what most people would think of as "pretty awesome?"
On #4, "more often than not" and "offers great accessible licensing" seems equally disingenuous. Further, why should any of us have to license technology or patents that were primarily funded by tax revenue? Shouldn't that just be automatically and fully open? When the government decides to sequester that knowledge what process do I have to challenge that?
On #5, outside of pharmaceutical companies, what are these new GDP growth and returning pipelines that actually get created and impact citizens directly?
Under the Bayh-Dole Act state universities do the exact same thing. They patent their research and license it to private companies. Their discoveries are no more or less open to the public than with private universities.
> By and large, what is being withheld are funds for research.
I don't know precisely, but I would assume the universities take about 50% to 60% of the granted research funding as administrative overhead, and only what remains goes to the actual research.
This is somewhat disingenuous. Something like half of the grant is handed over to the University as overhead. Much of that is legit to cover things like labs but a lot of it goes to a cover a massive amount of administrative bloat.
Also, nobody really objects to the research that leads directly to stuff private industry can use. That's not what people want to cut.
That's not how facilities work or are accounted for.
Facilities are common to all of the university. It doesn't make sense to force this individual requirement on each grant when the University has hundreds of ways it is using a given building or lab equipment.
Are you thinking "facility" == "building" and "rooms"?
The lab equipment is constantly evolving, needs repair, maintenance, on-site training. Perhaps you are thinking of a lab bench that is going to last the lifetime of the building and I am thinking of a computer server, 3D scanner, 3D printer, MRI machine (small lab system), etc.
My son has taken second year organic chemistry classes that had more computer hardware and software than I ever had in my electrical engineering/computer
science classes in the early 1990s. The software might be open source, or might have ongoing software license fees. While those specific teaching labs should be paid for through tuition, imagine similar or more advanced versions in the research labs.
facility is intentionally broad. I think the point being that all of those things are being provided by the University to many researchers/students/professors.
The point is that separating out what gets allocated where, when there are so many things that might have multiple uses, is a pointless task if you're trying to reverse engineer how much money should be given to individual research teams to account for it. The University already has the systems in place to manage the overhead. There's no reason to do more work to try and get to the same result.
This is what accountants do. They match expenses to income. It shouldn't be that hard.
J. Random Professor is using lab #12 for his group. Apportion the overall building expenses by square foot to his grant budgets, or something along those lines.
When I was a PhD student at the University of British Columbia in the Department of Computer Science research grant proposals included budgets for overhead. This was often, if I recall correctly, 10% of the overall equipment and salary budget. This was deemed a tax collected by the department and used to:
- pay IT staff salaries
- pay IT hardware and service costs (storage, communication)
- etc
Other costs on the research grant would include:
- hardware purchases: personal computers, specialized equipment, compute and storage servers
- graduate student and postdoctoral student salaries
- travel costs to conferences for students
- consumables (if any)
Again, in Canada, there are various types of research grants. For example, the "Research Tools and Instruments grants program" will pay the entire cost of the equipment. This includes: shipping, customs fees, warranty/service contracts, software licensing, on-site training.
Note that travel, salary and benefits, consumables, renovations, lab infrastructure are not allowed.
For other types of grants the institution's "tax rate" is usually specified by the Department of Research, and can be as high as 25%. UBC hides it's rates behind a portal, but Simon Fraser University has a description of them: https://www.sfu.ca/research/researcher-resources/fund-my-res...
I won't speak to the amount of "administrative bloat" that universities have experienced during my two decades post graduation. While it exists, a tax rate of 25% seems quite reasonable when you consider the overall costs of research at a university compared to equivalent commercial office/lab space.
The numbers you are suggesting do indeed seem reasonable, and if those were the overheads being used, they would probably be justified. But I think current overheads are often much higher. Here for example is a recent article saying that the proposed 15% cap on overhead for NIH grants would be disastrous for universities like Harvard that currently have a 69% negotiated overhead rate: https://deliprao.substack.com/p/understanding-nihs-15-overhe...
To be fair, I'm not sure if that author is using the same definition that you are. In the article, they clarify that a 69% rate means that a $1,000,000 grant has an extra $690,000 paid to Harvard. Still, the idea that the rates should be the same for all institutions and should be closer to the numbers you remember certainly seems worth considering.
Federally-funded academic science often looks like:
Withholding these funds ends the research projects, because Universities are not startup incubators. So the research stops, and one of the highest returning pipelines of new GDP growth for the US dries up—unless today, the professors and universities kiss the president's ring and promise to wipe out 50-100 years of human rights improvements.